Talk:High-heeled shoe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Transwiki

This page has been Transwikied to Wiktionary. The transwiki process is complete.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmcdevit (talk • contribs) 00:56, June 22, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add information to this article. What's the hurry? Geneviève 07:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History

I've heard someone saying that high heels had actually really been invented by a hater of women who meant them as some kind of torture; only afterwards would it have become a fashion accessory, when someone saw the thing and found it beautiful, not knowing what they were for in the first place.

Whether this is true or not, the article could use a history section. And an "urban legend" section too, if the rumor I mentionned is widespread. Jules LT 23:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a joke, at best. When high heels were first worn for fashion (rather than practicality, as in riding boots), they were worn by men. Women began wearing them, and eventually men stopped wearing them.

[edit] The future of heels

This section is speculative, and quite possibly original research. What we can do is to cite some authorities in fashion (or anyone published in a reliable source) concerning their opinions on the future of heels.

  • A pic and links to fashion trends of male models in heels have been posted numerous times. Quite often they're deleted. I'm not sure of the motivation or reasoning why, as this is a very real fashion trend well-documented in the news. I've done my best to restore such evidenciary support for the comments supporting this reality but am fighting a loosing battle with some admins who're out to re-create the world in their own image. Mugaliens 20:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is more encyclopedic than listing a bunch of possibilities, which may have been cooked up from someone's head. (I'm not alleging this; I'm just saying that it's a lot better if we can prove that someone besides this encyclopaedia's editors cooked it up.) After all, considering how the section is written, I could write that "Another possibility may be that extraterrestrials may invade the planet Earth and enforce the mandatory wearing of heels by all men," without being in the wrong. We need to cite sources and the opinions of others about the future of heels, not our own opinions. Johnleemk | Talk 10:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The future of any fashion trend is always highly speculative! Even the fashion designers themselves never reveal (possibly never know) what they're going to do next year. All we can do is document the current trends, and since the mid-90s, heelwear among men has been on the (admitedly guarded) rise. Source: [[1]] Evidence includes growing membership lists, members, increased posts, topics, bandwidth requirements, the list goes on, not only on this site but on many other fashion websites, including fashion.com, but the truth is incontroverable (despite some Wiki admin's attempts at suppressing it and trying to mold the world into their myopic view of reality). Life simply is! Get with it, enjoy it, at least accept it, or go to Disneyland. Your choice. Not mine. I choose REALITY! Mugaliens 20:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Meanderings of Those Who Wish Life to Be The Way They Want It

Sorry, John, but no speculation involved at all. Heels for men are here to stay, beginning around the 1600s, so you're a little late for critique... True, as a fashion for men they've waxed and waned (previously in a wane phase, but now waxing) but that's of little consequence to the hundreds of thousands of men who wear heeled shoes and boots daily, most at home, but many at work and throughout daily life.

So far as citations are concerned, simply keep your eyes peeled downtown. Given the numbers, it's a good bet that one in at least 500 hundred men are wearing a pair of heels. Statistics show it's closer to one in 250. Most are probably hidden beneath their pants legs, but some may be more open about it.

By the way, the problem with "authorities in fashion" is that they're almost always wrong. Just examine what comes out on the runways and what's actually bought from the shelves. Talk about speculation! Fashion "authorities" exist for the purpose of selling high-dollar items in limited quantities. Everything else is decided at Wal-Mart.

Your references to extraterrestrials is funny... Pathetic attempt at dissuading the arguement, but funny nevertheless!

By the way, John, ever hear of a "kilt?" It's a skirt in other countries, worn by the other sex, but for about 2/3 of the world's population, it remains a fashionable outer garment, worn throughout daily life. At least 40% of the world's male population wears a skirted garment on a daily basis.

Here's a hint: http://www.kiltmen.com/world.htm

Good hunting!

I'm sorry, but I had to delete that dreaded white shoe as it was hideous! Dr1819 12:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job on clashing with policy. Johnleemk | Talk 13:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dreaded Ugly White Heel Pic

And... someone added it back. UGH! That thing is hideous. There are thousands of high heel pics on the Internet - it's time to get rid of this one! Dr1819 13:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Validity of the Information

I removed all references to "...in the gay community" that someone inserted to trash this article. The vast majority of men who wear heels are straight, not gay. The idea of men wearing heels is actually less well-accepted in the gay community than it is in the straight community.

For "sources and the opinions of others about the future of heels" see the HighHeel Meeting Place link at the bottom of the article. That website carries links to other fashion discussion websites where the concept of men wearing heels has been discussed at great length.

In addition, the History of the High-Heel and the History of Costumes links strongly confirms the historical information presented herein, both verbally, and graphically, such as this picture from the History of Costumes link which depicts German Nobility in the 1600s: http://www.siue.edu/COSTUMES/PLATE60BX.HTML

Dr1819 13:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trends for Heels

I removed the Verification flag on this section for several reasons.

First, leather is being increasingly used for shoes as people tire of synthetics. This direct observation can be made by anyone - just walk into a shoe store. If it's not a tennis/running/walking etc. shoe, it's probably leather.

Second, many manufacturers of heels are now including gel insoles to cushion the shock of walking in heels. This is fairly new, but it's catching on quick, as gel is quite superior to foam for properly distributing and cushioning the impact. Leading companies include Fitzwell's Gel Insole Women's Collection and a pre/aftermarket product called Insolia. There are many more companies moving to provide more ergonomic and anatomically correct heels.

Third, the trend towards the use of mixed materials simply makes sense - use the best material for particular location/function. All-leather or all-cloth shoes are a thing of the past. My 4" heeled boots from Gabrielle Rocha, for example, are all leather uppers, gel insoles, synthetic lining, and hard, dense plastic heels. I've another pair of boots that are leather with a Gore-tex liner to keep out water. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr1819 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Follow policy, please. (In case it isn't clear, "walking into a shoe store" is original research, and we need a source for the claim that "many manufacturers...". And just because something "simply makes sense" doesn't mean you can ignore WP:V. It should be something simply indisputable -- like the fact that the Sun rises everyday -- and nothing less.) I've restored the tag. Johnleemk | Talk 13:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Please hold true to your comments. First, verify the research: A quick comparison of the 115,787 hits on Yahoo Shopping - All Women's Shoes and the 57,898 hits on Yahoo Shopping - Leather Women's Shoes clearly shows that leather is an extremely common footwear material, with nearly half of all offerings by hundreds of manufacturers being made out of leather. Second, I would greatly appreciate your honesty and your removing the tag concerning "unverifiability." Third, I would appreciate it in the future if the Wiki Administrators would use the 93 seconds it took me to verify this information and type this response instead of taking the perhaps 120 seconds it took to affix the tag. Dr1819 19:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr1819 - It is not the job of administrators to search for sources for every unsourced section someone writes. Since you wrote the section, it is fair to expect you to have sources to back it up. It is not enough that you know it is true, or that you can prove it in the real world. Because of the way Wikipedia is written, it is important that contributors only insert things that have already been published elsewhere and cite these sources. This is not an attempt by anyone to pretend that leather shoes are not popular, or that men do not wear high heels, or that a third of the world's men do not wear skirts, only that for Wikipedia to be worth anything you have to source every comment with a published source. Otherwise someone could just write that aliens were going to force people to wear high-heeled shoes in the 'future' section and it would have equal footing with your claims. To avoid Wikipedia just being a collection of opinions, people need to only write what has already been published, and cite their sources. I cannot say this enough times because I care about this project. Skittle 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dreaded White Heel Pic - Take 2

Now that someone has added the nice black heel, I'll try removing the ugly white heel pic again. Hopefully, if someone chooses to add it back, they'll take the time to explain why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr1819 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's an improvement, but it's still the same style of shoe. How about including an oxford, circa the 70s, and a modern highheeled boot, such as these?

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b129/dr1819/81bc6caa.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b129/dr1819/d664e4d8.jpg

Neither of these images are copyrighted, so feel free to use them here.

  • I've put the white shoe back. It is interesting because it is open-toed, a platform, and has a stacked heel. The red shoe and the black shoes are almost the same style. (Looks like the black shoes may have an European-style longer pointed toe box, but it is hard to tell.) I really don't feel free to use random photobucket images that I know nothing about. Perhaps Dr1819 would like to upload them with the proper copyright tag so they can be used. Crypticfirefly 04:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As a further comment, we need examples of more styles: kitten heel, louis heel, Cuban heel, stilletto, wedge, etc. Also, how about some other styles, such as sandals, boots (you really can't see the boot in the picture above), and maybe a lower heel like 1 1/2" or so. Crypticfirefly 04:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I know this for a fact...

In the aesthetics bulletpoint list, it does neglect the major benefit of wearing high heels from the aesthetic point of view. It eliminates the pit behind the knee, stretching the tendons there into a nice bulge. I know this is a fact, but it probably needs a more authoritative source before it can be added. Anybody know if that observation has been mentioned anywhere? -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clear heels

Anyone feel like posting any info on the infamous "clear heels" sometimes humorously associated with exotic dancers? Or what about a section or article on the tawdry reputation high heels have in some places?

[edit] "The future of heels"

I have removed this entire section from the article, on the basis that it is speculative, unsupported by any references, and not written in an encyclopedic style. The content removed reads as follows:

While it is impossible to predict the future of fashion, there are several interesting trends.
First is a return to leather, which for heels makes a lot of sense, since leather excels at providing support while gently remolding and conforming itself to the wearer's foot to provide better distributed support, thereby eliminating hot spots. Furthermore, in addition to providing comfortable, but not excessive levels of warmth, leather breathes fairly well, unlike synthetic coverings.
Second is an increased emphasis on ergonomics. Heels that hurt aren't given much word of mouth, a fact which isn't lost among designers. Heels that combine good looks with proper construction and support are comfortable to wear all day, which to designers, is free advertising. Combined with the fact that consumers are more discriminating with respect to good fit in the store, it's easy to see why ergonomics is playing an increasing role. Some of the more recent shoes and boots have been designed with built-in gel inserts to support the ball of the foot and the heel, and are quite comfortable to wear for extended periods of time.
Third is the use of mixed materials. Cuts including both smooth and suede leathers, as well as natural and synthetic leathers, even fabric in some areas, is becoming more common. This trend uses the best textile for any given area, capitalizing on that textile's strength, and minimizing its weakness. Recent examples include the use of tough rubber non-skid soles and heel-tips, gel inserts for cushioned comfort, leather toe boxes and uppers, synthetic fabric linings and padding to keep moisture away from the foot, stretch synthetic leather insteps to keep the foot firm against the footbed, and plastic zippers. Each technology capitalizes on it's strengths, and reduces the weaknesses.

If anyone can support any of this with cites, please feel free to put it back, with any necessary edits needed for NPOV.

-- The Anome 11:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears entirely reasonable to me, and echos what I've been hearing my wife and her GF state for the last couple of years. If you have evidence otherwise, please post. Otherwise, please revert, as the original author appears to be fairly accurate.

Thanks.

It sounds reasonable to me, as well. I recommend revert, and add a "Citation Needed" mark. Mugaliens 22:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heels and Men edit

I removed the following line from Heels and Men section: "They may also be worn out of necessity by women with unusually large feet and male-to-female transsexuals."

Reason 1: Large-footed women wearing heels isn't the topic of this section. Reason 2: Male-to-female transexuals are legally recognized as women in the US, much of North America, throughout most of Europe, and in many other countries.

[edit] Shoe Picture Comment

The shoe picture whilst aesthetically pleasing has an incorrect label! That is a standard Stiletto heel of about 3.5 inches (measured down the back). A Sabrina Heel is a stiletto heel of less than 3 inches and is sometimes called a Kitten Heel. The former is a purely US term (like Cha Cha Heels for Stiletto heels) and was named after the character of the same name played by Audrey Hepburn; Audrey was quite tall and so wore stiletto heels of about 2.25 to 2.75 inches. However the term is sometimes used in the US to describe any thickness heel of less than 3 inches. A kitten heel is properly a stiletto (or near stiletto - no more than 0.75 inch thick) heel of 2 inches (no more than 2.25) or less in height. Stiletto refers to the thickness, not the height; a true stiletto is about 0.25 to 0.4 inches in thickness.

Mike Martlet 18th August 2006

[edit] Advertising Removed

"High Heel Specialists" was nothing more than a front for an online shoe store. Mugaliens 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the height of a heel measured from?

How should I measure the heel height of a high-heeled shoe? Thanks! — ciphergoth 10:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's measured from the surface of a hard floor to the top of the back of the heel (the top of the heel itself, not the heel cup). Mugaliens 12:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda vs Reality

JzGuy wrote: "We have already purged the "fashion freedom" propaganda once."

Truthful information backed up by references supporting it's truthfulness is not "propaganda." Books have been written about the change in men's fashion. Several fashion designers have shown men in heels on the runways (see the second reference). Some male designers are wearing heels themselves, as are quite a number of heterosexual males. It's reality, not propaganda, and wrongly terming it as such will not change reality.

Why are you opposed to including factual information? Just curious, as others on this board seem prevalent to attack things which fall outside their personal comfort zone. I hope that's not the case with you. Look up and you'll see I don't like irrelevant information, either, and have pruned this article several times. But relevant information should remain. Please restore the information you removed, along with the references. Thanks. Mugaliens 15:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You were told as Dr1819 about this. Guy 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I know of Dr1819, as he and I share similar interests, but I am not him. Quite frankly, he was a hothead. He didn't help our cause with his unbridled comments, although the basic content of his comments was sound, and I supported that content.

You are asking us to believe that one aviating system engineer with a fixation for "fashion freedom", kiltmen.com and heels left, another started editing the same articles days later? See this thread for some evidence that I am not the only one to find this completely implausible [2]. Guy 23:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask, what are you erroneously implying? IP Addresses have been conserved by NAT for the last several years in lieu of IP6. It's high time admins realize that network address translation NAT is alive and well, in practice by many ISP's around the world, and often results in false identification. The use of IP addresses to accurately identify a person is dead. Mine changes, through my ISP's assignment of addresses, on a weekly basis. I strongly suggest you get a clue as to how the modern Internet actually operates and stop trying to pin down people based upon their IP addresses. That's NOT how the Internet works, at least not in the last decade! Thank you very much! Mugaliens 20:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"It is now accepted as a bold male fashion statement to wear high heels in the name of Fashion Freedom.[1] [2] Fashion Freedom experimenters are representing high heel fashion in New York and on the West Coast, especially in San Francisco and Seattle where men wearing platforms or high heels are commonly seen at parties and clubs. - - Men wearing heels is a hot topic of discussion on fashion message boards, as well,[3] and the leading edge of the high fashion scene. Designer Jean Paul Gaultier has put his male models on the runway in high heels and new designer Rui Leonardes' created a small collection of high heels for men.[4]"

Okay. Now, why this was probably removed is that it is expressed in a POV way. Rather than say "It is now accepted as a bold male fashion statement..." and reference sites which will clearly be heavily in favour of such a view :-) can we say "There is a community of men called "Fashion Freedom experimenters" who wear high heels as a fashion statement. They are most commonly found in New York and on the West Coast of the USA. They also tend to form communities online where they can discuss this. Some fashion designers, such as Jean Paul Gaultier and Rui Leonardes, design high heeled shoes for men." Then source these sentences? I'm not saying this is the best way to put it, but it is a way that avoids expressing a point of view. Skittle 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point, Skittle. I'd add, though, that they're also found throughout the UK, Germany, Brazil, Australia, China, Canada, and France, if memory of the board serves me correctly. What? About 800 current members, more than 5,000, overall, since the turn of the century? 84.166.177.168 22:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
An additional point begs the question: "Why the deletions? Why not do what other admins do and just edit out what they feel is a NPOV while leaving in the relevant content?" Mugaliens 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Up to a point. The whole fashion freedom thing was inserted in various places by Dr1819 (mugaliens' previous account) and removed (by several editors and admins) as fundamentally unverifiable from neutral secondary sources and as a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Unfortunately, mugaliens / Dr1819 is apparently unable to accept that this action is motivated by anything other than bigotry, which is baseless. The paras above are heavily editorialised, sourced (as you note) from biased sources, and serve to promote an agenda rather than document facts. Guy 23:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Guy, I'm just one of many tens of thousands who believe in fashion freedom, not some mythical (in your mind "purpetrator") of something otherwise. I'm actually quite conservative compared to the tens of thousands of others in the Western world who choose otherwise, and there's millions of men in the non-western world who wear MUGs on a regular basis.. Neither I nor any participant in the English language understands your erroneous term of the word "bigotry," which, according to Merriam-Webster, says:

1 : the state of mind of a bigot 2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

When you look up "bigot" it says: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

The only hatred and intolerance on Wikipedia has eminated from the likes of you and a very small (1 or 2) other admins who hack and slash content you find personably objectionable, including excellent references (which I'll have to rebuild in the heels section), because you personally disagree with the content.

That's bigotry, at least according to the dictionary definition. Your twisted use of the word against accurate citation of real events around the world underscores your own biases, which, in the face of the evidence otherwise, falls squarely within the realm of bigotry. It's calling the kettle black, Guy. I don't appreciate it, and I'm quite sure others don't appreciate it either.

Admittedly, we're neither a racial nor an ethnic group. However, that definition is old, and perhaps requires some modification, regardless, the first of our kind surfaced in 1500, again in the 1970s with Saturday Night Fever, and more recently in the 1990s. I'd love to provide you links to the latter, but unfortunately, almost all have been deleted by Guy.

Fortunately, his responses as recorded in his record of posts are all the proof that's required to substantiate his actions and comments contained herein with respect to his actions.

I feel confident that these comments will serve as commentary that I've done everything I can to work with Guy. Hopefully, he'll respond in kind. If not, it will be so noted.

84.166.177.168 22:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Guy - it's past time for you to stop these assertions of yours. You keep saying I'm Dr1819 because he and I overlapped here for a time and he's one of several hundred people here and one of literally tens of thousands who happen to agree on a few (but not all) of a few issues. Any non-rocket scientist can tell you that's really not a stellar association. While he was a hothead, I'm not. Your accusations that I'm him are childish, and unfounded. I refuse to argue your points, as they're utterly groundless, but because you continue to post them, I'm choosing to raise them to the appropriate administrative level. In addition, I'm calling your admin credentials into question due to your continued efforts to bully myself and others, as well as your unfounded assertions that I'm someone I'm not. I've e-mailed you privately on some of the bicycling issues, so you ought to know better by now. I'd hoped rational thought along with some common ground (bicycling) would have avoided this, but apparently it has not.

This is not my choice, as I choose peace. However, you appear to have chosen a very confrontational attitude, rather than a cooperative or a collaborative one. Since you're apparently unwilling to either cooperate or collaborate on these issues, I've not choice but to elevate this further. If you change your mind, please let me know! Because I'm a rather patient individual, however, I'll wait for 24 hours for what I hope is a collaborate, rather than a combative, response. I know very well that there could, and should, be a much better course of action between us. Ball's in your court. Please make the best of it, for all concerned - you, I, and other Wikipedians. I trust that you'll do so. If not, all will become self-evident over time.

I do ask, however, that you be very honest with both yourself, and with us. Thank you. 84.166.177.168 22:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how the "many tens of thousands" who believe in fashion freedom evaporated when we checked the verifiability of the fashion freedom article. Assertions of rouge admin abuse are par for the course in these situations, of course, but as you will have noticed, the few new editors you have attracted here through your recent requests have supported my edits, for which I have cited a basis in policy and guidelines. WP:IHEARDOFIT does not trump WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:EL. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JzG and Vandelism

Excuse me, but these links have been a valid and appreciated part of this article for quite some time, almost a year. Now you come here, rip them out and call them "spam."

These are valid links:

I'm reporting you for vandelism. Mugaliens 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Feel free. Do not be surprised if you get whacked with a Wikitrout for describing as "vandelism" a good-faith edit by an admin, with an edit summary explaining it. Which part of the link guidelines do you think these meet? Guy 16:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, JzG. The links meet most of the criteria for "What to Link" ("criteria" is not the right word, as they're fairly vague guidelines). The links don't meet any criteria for "Links normally to be avoided" except possibly #7, and that's a thin arguement given the fact that [| High Heel Place - The High Heel community] is the largest member forum on the Internet dedicated to high heels. Given the title of this article, "High-heeled shoe," and it's what pops up when you search on "high heels," it's only appropriate to include a link to a website containing massive volumes of resources concerning historical and current fashion of high heels. If you feel this is not true, please explain in detail as to why you believe so. Yes, the site has a disucssion area, as well, but most websites with other purposes more primary also have discussion areas. If you feel it's a question of promoting the site, I'll include links to other fashion websites which cover high heels to balance the load. Mugaliens 17:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. I respectfully request that you please do not remove valid content that accurately portrays reality by citing it as "spam" then threaten members with getting "whacked with a Wikitrout" for clearly stating their position on the issue then demanding they justify their position when you have clearly not justified yours. These actions on your part, particularly the rude, condescending, and threatening manner in which you present yourself, are contrary to any effective, rational assessment of the actual issue, which concerns the fashion choices of all people, not just a few, nor conformity to some mythical fashion "norm." Fashion varies quite extensively throughout the world, and subcultures of fashion are quite real, and quite notable, whether your personal opinion agrees with them or not. As both a member in good standing here and as an admin on two other boards, I expect your conduct here, particularly since you're an admin, to be exemplary, but instead you act like a bully. I do not find bullying behavior acceptable, regardless of your status. I am by no means out to become an enemy of yours. I am merely trying to create content here on Wikipedia which reflects reality, complete with references and resources, yet am confounded as to why you insist on deleting it then mis-labeling it as "spam," etc. Please explain your actions. If you can, great. If you can't, I'll continue to elevate this issue until it's appropriately resolved. 19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an article on high heeled shoes. Commercial links, fansites, similar cruft, have no place here. The onus is on the editors seeking to include content, to justify its inclusion. The links are ont references and do not provide additional authoritative information about the subject. Guy 23:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that I'm doing my best in the following comments to be both polite and objective. I would appreciate open, honest discourse on this subject, void of name-calling and condescending comments. Please identify which links you feel are "commercial." Also, please describe what you mean by "fantasies." I've been to several [| gatherings] among men who wear heels. [| Numerous photographs] of the gatherins where the men are wearing heels in public are posted on the website, proof that it's real, not fantasy. Although I do not personally agree with homosexuality, it's here to stay, and it would be wrong for me to delete Wikipedia content on homosexuality just because I don't agree with it. Reality is not fantasy, and hurling false accusations helps no one and harms many. It does not matter whether you personally like the trend, it's a trend nevertheless. As for your use of the term "cruft," it's not a part of the English language, so I'll ignore it unless you would care to describe what you mean by it. Please refrain from personal attacks and deletion of valid content based upon how you believe everyone else should run their lives. There's a reason Western civilation largely supports free choice and largely denounces those who try to control or brainwash others by abuse of authority. If you don't like men wearing heels, please learn to ignore it, as it's not going away, whether you delete all references on Wikipedia or not. Resorting to name-calling and and deletion of valid content in an attempt to reshape reality into your own personal vision is beneath the dignity and well beneath the responsibility of any admin. In the future, I respectfully request you exercise more objectivity. I thank you in advance for taking the time towards a more objective understanding. Mugaliens 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are three misconceptions rolled into one here. The first is that a forum on high heel fandom has a place in the Wikipedia article on high heeled shoes. It doesn't. It would have a place in an article on the forum (were that to meet our WP:WEB guidelines; a forum which has only 3,500 accounts, of which many will be inactive, is unlikely to meet that guideline) but not in a general article on high heeled shoes. The second error is to assume that your original research can be taken as evidence of anything. It can't. Even if it were not original research, the stated source is not reliable. And the tone in which it was written suggests a soapbox rather than an encyclopaedia. The third misconception is that objections to inclusion of links and text are founded on disagreement with their content, rather than the stated policies. That idea is baseless. Guy 11:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Removed

Link to [High Heels for Men] removed as it doesn't appear to be a valid website. Mugaliens 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


http://www.hhplace.org/discuss/ HighHeel Meeting Place Is a discussion forum, which isn't really appropriate here. It would only really be appropriate in an article about itself.

http://www.tallwoman.org/shoes/usa/ US Sources for larger sized heels seems to be a commercial site, and so probably inappropriate here.

Can we delete these two sites? Skittle 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes. That is why I removed them. Guy 23:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, neither of these two sites are commercial. The first site is the largest site on the Internet in terms of the number of users who have an interest in high heeled shoes. The second site simply lists a large number of resources pertaining supporting this topic, but refrains from listing any resource in particular. This precedent has been established on countless articles. The controlling ideal is whether or not the links support any particular or even a small group of commercial resources, and neither of these links do. Rather, they support most resources available. This post follows the norm found throughout Wikipdedia. Mugaliens 19:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Links were restored in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Justifications provided on this page. Mugaliens 19:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists of sellers of goods ARE commercial sites. They are advertising for those sellers. And being a large forum isn't reason enough to appear in this article I'm afraid. Note I never said the Highheel Meeting Place was commercial, rather that it is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article on high heeled shoes. If there were a page on the highheel meeting place, for which it would have to have featured in the media or books or some such, then you could provide the link there. I am removing the links again. Skittle 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
#7 in the list of links normally to be avoided list reads:

Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself.

Commercial sites have already been covered by the above comments, but a discussion forum is no more legitimate than a commercial site in terms of linking on wikipedia. siafu 18:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

I have tidied the article up a bit to remove some of the self-contradictions and apparent editorialising. We had a definition of high-heel (as opposed to mid-heel) which seems reasonable but could do with an authority. Much of the "men and heels" section was founded on people wearing cuban heels or boots with a heel, which is not really what the article is about. We need a reliable source (i.e. not original research from a single image) for the statement that fashion designers used heels on male catwalk models. Some names would also be good. Guy 12:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/g/Talk%7EHigh-heeled_shoe_c01c.html"